Journal of Teaching in Travel & Tourism

ISSN: 1531-3220 (Print) 1531-3239 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wttt20

Curriculum assessment through a capstone

course: a case study in hospitality and tourism
programs

Jackie Carpenter, Lea R. Dopson, Young Hoon Kim & Nancy Kniatt

To cite this article: Jackie Carpenter, Lea R. Dopson, Young Hoon Kim & Nancy Kniatt
(2016) Curriculum assessment through a capstone course: a case study in hospitality
and tourism programs, Journal of Teaching in Travel & Tourism, 16:1, 40-59, DOI:
10.1080/15313220.2015.1115383

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15313220.2015.1115383

Published online: 10 Mar 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 3

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wttt20

Download by: [Library Services City University London] Date: 24 March 2016, At: 02:37
 JOURNAL OF TEACHING IN TRAVEL & TOURISM, 2016
VOL. 16, NO. 1, 40–59
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15313220.2015.1115383

Curriculum assessment through a capstone course: a case

study in hospitality and tourism programs
Jackie Carpentera, Lea R. Dopsonb, Young Hoon Kima and Nancy Kniatta
a
Hospitality and Tourism, University of North Texas, Denton, TX, USA; bThe Collins College of Hospitality
Management, California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, CA, USA
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 02:37 24 March 2016

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The purpose of this study was to develop a systematic process Received 15 November 2014
that other educational institutions and programs could follow to Accepted 31 March 2015
establish a consistent and accurate evaluation method for a cap- KEYWORDS
stone course. Hospitality industry professionals and hospitality Curriculum assessment;
management faculty were interviewed through focus-group dis- Bloom’s taxonomy; student
cussions, and a post-focus-group survey was conducted to deter- learning outcomes; test
mine a weighted percentage for each of the nine determined blueprint; capstone course
content domains. A test blueprint for a hospitality management
capstone course was developed to measure programmatic stu-
dent learning outcomes based on the weighted domains deter-
mined through this study. The results provide a usable instrument
for hospitality and tourism management programs to enhance
their current assessment methodology.

1. Introduction
Hospitality educators have questioned whether hospitality management programs are
adequately preparing students for the hospitality industry (Kay & Russette, 2000). In
seeking to answer this question, assessment has been emphasized as a way to assist
hospitality educators in determining the students’ ability to acquire the desired char-
acteristics and competencies identified as essential for success. Assessment is important
for several reasons: (1) to measure learning achievement against specific learning goals
and to provide feedback for individual students, (2) to assist educational institutions
and faculty members in enhancing, evolving, and improving their students’ learning
experiences, and (3) to fulfill the essential requirement for hospitality and tourism
educators to complete an assessment in order to receive accreditation (Daigle, Hayes, &
Hughes, 2007).
Setting clear, measurable, and obtainable goals for each course in addition to student
learning outcomes (SLOs) creates a significant path for hospitality educators and stu-
dents to pursue (Kay & Russette, 2000). One way of measuring the attainment of these
SLOs is through a capstone course that is designed to assess achievement of program-
matic student learning outcomes. A capstone course can be designed to be a culminat-
ing experience for students, or as an opportunity to utilize all knowledge acquired

CONTACT Young Hoon Kim younghoon.kim@unt.edu

© 2016 Taylor & Francis
 JOURNAL OF TEACHING IN TRAVEL & TOURISM 41

throughout the program to analyze problems and develop creative solutions based on
that knowledge. Typically, educational institutions generate capstone courses as an
opportunity for assessment. However, it has been a challenge to develop a standardized
evaluation method. Thus, this study is designed to explain how to measure competency
and review existing curriculum, develop and refine a capstone course, and design an
assessment blueprint to be used to evaluate the program’s effectiveness through a
capstone course.

2. Research foundations
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 02:37 24 March 2016

2.1. Student learning outcomes and assessment

Student learning outcomes (SLOs) have several meanings. SLOs may refer to specific
objectives set for students to reach pertaining to an individual course, or SLOs may
describe expected outcomes established by a specific educational department within a
university for a particular program. Outcomes will be referred to throughout this section
as pertaining to the entire program, and objectives will be utilized in relation to
individual courses within the program. Regardless of the use, these expectations must
be clearly defined, measurable, obtainable, and observable goals established to guide
educational experiences for students (Murray, Pérez, & Guimaraes, 2008). SLOs explain
what students will learn, demonstrate, or understand within a specified amount of time.
SLOs have been defined as statements that identify the learning outcomes, such as skills,
knowledge, attitudes, or values that students will be able to know, do, or demonstrate
after they have completed their program through their courses and projects (University
of Rhode Island, 2009). By developing specific outcomes for students, educators are able
to structure the learning experience throughout the course or program.
According to Betts (2008), every course designed should contain specific objectives
that are cohesive with the overall program’s expectations. If these objectives do not
effectively address the material covered in the program, they should be adjusted or
changed accordingly. Objectives should be established prior to the start of a course. This
is an essential component for success; establishing expectations before beginning keeps
students and teachers on a direct path and avoids aimlessly covering material to fill class
periods (2008). Objectives, as well as SLOs, should be defined from an operational
perspective and often begin with the phrase, “the student will be able to.” Learning
outcomes describe specific skills, knowledge, or abilities that students will possess and
be able to demonstrate upon completion of an educational course or program (Murray
et al., 2008).
SLOs may also be thought of as expectations for learning. Setting expectations is an
essential component in education; it enables students to understand the specific knowl-
edge they are expected to acquire, as well as the level at which they are expected to master
it. SLOs are essential for high-quality programs. By clearly identifying the levels of learning,
educators are able to assess whether these levels are being taught in the classroom and
whether students are mastering the content at the expected levels (Betts, 2008).
SLOs serve several purposes, most importantly by providing departments with feed-
back and enabling departments to understand how to better facilitate learning. They
also provide students with the ability to explain what they know how to do. SLOs enable
 42 J. CARPENTER ET AL.

students to understand the skills they are learning and present them with a roadmap of
where learning opportunities exist within their department (University of Rhode Island,
2009). Typically, a program of study will contain five to ten general outcomes with more
clearly defined objectives designated for each individual course. Outcomes and objec-
tives should address the knowledge, skills, or abilities that are expected to be obtained,
and they should be stated in a way that can be measured or assessed (Murray et al.,
2008).
Assessment encourages education to be focused on student-based learning rather
than on teaching-based instruction. It enables educators to ensure that courses or
programs are meaningful and useful in both academic and practical perspectives.
Assessment is a continuous process and must be thought of in this way (Peach,
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 02:37 24 March 2016

Mukherjee, & Hornyak, 2007).

Many simplified course evaluation processes (e.g., key questions for each course) have
been created and used by universities. Thus, they could go through the motions of
assessing their curriculum without having to actually do so, resulting in a significant gap
between educational and industry expectations (Daigle et al., 2007; Stivers & Phillips,
2009). All too often education is criticized for not adequately preparing students for their
industry; proper assessment is one of the most effective methods of closing this gap.
Assessment is an essential component to the success of a department, and educational
institutions really have no choice in whether to participate (Peach et al., 2007).
According to Daigle et al. (2007), course assessment should be viewed as a basic
building block for evaluating SLOs at the department level.

2.2. Assessment methods

Assessment can be complex, as the elements incorporated within assessment may have
many variations. Outcomes assessment and classroom assessment can be significantly
different. Harwood and Cohen (1999) describe outcomes assessment as intermittently
conducted by administrators to make adjustments to benefit future students in future
classes. They define classroom assessment as constant, resulting in immediate changes
to the course program by faculty to benefit current students. In essence, it is an
instructor’s responsibility to maintain classroom assessment to ensure that the learning
process is effective and efficient. However, this approach is direct and is more student-
based; it can be referred to as a bottom-up approach to assessment (Daigle et al., 2007).
On the other hand, the top-down approach stems from the U.S. Department of
Education, which sets regulations requiring educational institutions to complete assess-
ment in order to qualify for accreditation (Apostolou, 1999). The top-down assessment
approach is an attempt to promote accountability among educational institutions to
encourage the utilization of the bottom-up approach (Daigle et al., 2007).

2.3. Indirect and direct assessment

There are two basic forms of assessment: indirect and direct. Indirect assessments
include focus groups, surveys, interviews, etc. According to Price and Randall (2008),
knowledge surveys are frequently used for indirect assessment. These surveys ask
students to rate their skills and knowledge covering a range of content areas associated
 JOURNAL OF TEACHING IN TRAVEL & TOURISM 43

with a program. Students base responses on their level of confidence in identifying and
solving problems in these specific areas. Results of these indirect assessments are
immediate; however, the surveys are time-consuming and intense for students to
complete (2008).
On the other hand, direct assessment requires that students demonstrate mastery of
content by evaluating the students’ actual work (Price & Randall, 2008). Direct assess-
ment can be achieved through student papers, presentations, case studies, or pre-tests
and post-tests. The most commonly used form of direct assessment is pre-testing and
post-testing because it easily identifies the difference in student learning over the course
of the semester. The results of this form are immediate as well, but time constraints limit
the amount of information that can be tested. This form of direct assessment allows
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 02:37 24 March 2016

educators to incorporate SLOs established for the curriculum (2008). By utilizing direct
assessment methods, educators can determine the achievements of students by using
course-embedded assessment. Course-embedded assessment requires that students’
work be evaluated by using the specific objectives established for the course (2008). It
allows for everyday classroom activities to provide feedback for faculty on ways the
course can be enhanced or improved. This efficient and effective method ensures
consistency among several sections of the same course (Gerretson & Golson, 2005;
Price & Randall, 2008).

2.4. Assessment through a capstone course

According to Jervis and Hartley (2005), assessing a capstone course encompasses two
basic requirements. The first is that the instructor and/or faculty as a whole must assess
whether the students’ performance meets the course objectives. The second require-
ment is deciding whether the capstone course should be utilized as an assessment for
the entire program. This relates back to determining if the capstone course in its entirety
is effective and efficient. Faculty should determine solutions for these issues and identify
the main purpose of the capstone course for their department. According to Stivers and
Phillips (2009), faculty should keep in mind these recommended guidelines for
assessment:

(1) The main purpose of assessment is to enhance and improve the departmental
curriculum.
(2) Assessment of student learning involves faculty, staff, and students.
(3) Assessment is guided by the institution’s mission.
(4) Assessment of student learning should not be used for faculty or staff evaluations.
(5) Assessment is an ongoing and continuous process.
(6) The assessment process is evaluated periodically.

Assessment is an integral part of program improvement (Murray et al., 2008). It should

be a process that adequately evaluates students’ achievement of SLOs and objectives for
a program or course. Capstone course assessment will illuminate the program’s
strengths and weaknesses, thus providing the opportunity for the improvement and
enhancement of the student learning experience (2008). It is an evaluation that requires
“constant reevaluation, revision, and improvement of procedures” (Peach et al., 2007, p.
 44 J. CARPENTER ET AL.

4). This endless process often challenges educational institutions due to the amount of
effort and time required. It is recommended that assessment should bridge the gap
between perception and reality by providing students with the preparation they warrant
for a successful career in the industry (Stivers & Phillips, 2009).

2.4.1. Capstone course overview

A capstone course should be a positive and successful learning experience for every
student (Jervis & Hartley, 2005). It should provide a way for students to utilize their skills
and abilities to create solutions to problems through critical thinking. The course
instructor should act as a mentor or guide to lead students into problem analysis and
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 02:37 24 March 2016

resourceful solutions. The capstone course should be “an in-depth opportunity for the
student to demonstrate accomplishment of the full spectrum of that learning” (Moore,
2009, p. 2). Therefore, it is essential that the capstone course include a wide and
balanced variety of expectations. The student should be given the opportunity to utilize
existing knowledge to develop a solution to new analytical problems established in
the course. Capstone courses are intended to integrate critical thinking throughout the
course, rather than only technical skills (2009).
One of the main purposes of a capstone course is to prepare students for the profes-
sional world that they are about to enter. For this reason, educational institutions usually
ensure this course is mandatory in order for students to graduate. Typically, capstone
courses are taken by students in the final semester of their educational experience; this
course acts as a transition class from undergraduate student to industry professional.
According to Henscheid (2000), an important goal for capstone courses is to provide
students with career preparation and pre-professional development. Career preparation is
especially important with the increased competition in today’s workforce and the rapid
technological advancements that occur on a constant basis. Graduates are expected to be
hospitality managers upon completion of their degree. Often, students do not feel ready
for this type of intense position immediately following graduation. Capstone courses are
intended to help to bridge the gap between school and industry (Moore, 2009).
The capstone course serves as a collaboration of all previous skills and knowledge
that students have obtained with the proficiency and critical thinking abilities required
by professionals in the industry. According to Moore (2009), students are expected to
display a mastery of learning and demonstrate the ability to apply it to new and
integrated information. The capstone course serves as a summative evaluation of the
students’ experience at an educational institution and provides an opportunity to utilize
pre-existing knowledge to develop relationships between individual courses in prepara-
tion for their career (2009).
Universities have struggled to provide an opportunity for students to connect all of
the knowledge acquired in individual courses prior to entering the workforce (Jervis &
Hartley, 2005). Today, educational institutions are attempting to tie all of students’
educational experiences together through capstone courses; they are recognizing that
universities should be accountable for clearly stating and explaining their expected
standards for student learning, as well as assessing these objectives to determine the
level at which they have been met (Moore, 2009).
 JOURNAL OF TEACHING IN TRAVEL & TOURISM 45

2.4.2. Capstone course as a culminating experience

A capstone course is typically designed to be a culminating experience for the student. It
serves as a collaboration of knowledge and skills and also a bridge between college
student and industry professional. The course provides learning from a comprehensive
perspective. New information is not presented in this course; rather, building upon pre-
existing knowledge is demonstrated (Moore, 2009). A “capstone course is usually the
culminating academic experience that ties together all previous courses in an academic
discipline and facilitates transition to a chosen career” (Henscheid, 2000, p. 2).
Henscheid (2000) found that almost half of the regionally accredited higher educa-
tional institutions use capstone courses as part of their assessment program. However,
educational institutions often struggle to design capstone courses appropriately so they
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 02:37 24 March 2016

can be accurately and adequately assessed. Capstone courses are often identified as
such, but they may or may not be designed to be culminating experiences. They may be
designed for students to use knowledge acquired through the program, but rarely are
capstone courses designed to build on this knowledge to develop solutions to complex
problems or situations using critical thinking skills. The “tying in” of individual compe-
tencies and content domains regarding their relationships to one another is the critical
component often left out of capstone course design. Whether this feature exists deter-
mines whether the course can be defined as a true culminating experience. Adequately
designed culminating capstone courses may be used to assess the entire curricula.

2.4.3. Challenges in capstone courses

Capstone courses serve as a fundamental stepping-stone for students preparing to
launch their professional careers. Why then, have all universities not designed capstone
courses for their programs? The reason for this is that capstone courses are challenging
to design and implement correctly; consequently, all universities and their individual
departments have not yet established and implemented adequate capstone courses
(Henscheid, 2000).
Capstone courses combine the skills and knowledge students have previously
obtained and create critical thinking opportunities for students. The task for department
faculties and professors is the development of scenarios through which critical thinking
may be utilized. These scenarios may include case studies, projects, and/or discussions
using students’ prior knowledge as a foundation and encouraging the discovery of
solutions through critical thinking. Typically the most common methods used are oral
presentations, group projects, and individual projects (Henscheid, 2000).
Another difficulty in designing a capstone course is the identification of weaknesses
associated with the program. If students are unable to use critical thinking skills related
to a particular topic because of a deficiency in a specific area of the curricula, this may
hinder the experience of the capstone course for students. By creating a capstone
course used as an evaluation tool for the curriculum, other issues may be identified
that must first be addressed before the capstone course can reach its full potential
(Murray et al., 2008).
Additionally, the determination of an appropriate class size is an issue in delivering an
effective capstone course. Large classes increase the workload for professors through
the additional assignments, papers, or projects that must be graded. Instructors must be
able to prepare instructional methods that are manageable based on class size. In large
 46 J. CARPENTER ET AL.

courses, discussion may be limited. As a result, fewer in-class activities may be assigned
and more lecture-based teaching methods may be utilized. In larger classes, instructors
may also give fewer assignments, projects, or case studies to keep the workload
manageable. Smaller classes allow for more open discussion and the ability for most
students to contribute to the conversation. The ideal number of students for a capstone
course, according to Jervis and Hartley (2005), is no less than 20 and no more than 30
students in each class because this number encourages class discussion and promotes
the manageability of the course for the instructor.
It is essential to have the entire faculty’s “buy-in” when developing a capstone course
(Dopson & Tas, 2004; Peach et al., 2007). The support and ownership of the department’s
faculty is critical in the success of the capstone course. All courses leading up to the
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 02:37 24 March 2016

capstone course should be thought of as building blocks to enhance the student’s

learning experience. All faculty members must be involved in the design, development,
and implementation of the capstone course in order for the course to act as an
assessment of the entire curriculum (Stivers & Phillips, 2009).

2.5. Bloom’s Taxonomy (1956) versus Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy (2001)

In assessing the SLOs of a capstone course, faculty must decide whether to use the original
Bloom’s Taxonomy (1956) or the Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy (2001), as these methods
generate somewhat different results. In 1956, Benjamin Bloom and a team of educational
psychologists developed a taxonomy that established levels of intellectual phases required
for learning. It has since served as a common language for educators, and provided the
opportunity for educational outcomes to be measured by the extent of knowledge as well
as the intensity of that knowledge (Krathwohl, 2002). According to O’Halloran and
O’Halloran (1999), Bloom’s Taxonomy can serve as a “guideline for instructors to ensure
that higher levels of learning, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation are emphasized” (p. 1). It is
a very helpful tool in the development of curriculum and enables educators to evaluate
students’ progress toward established goals and objectives (1999). The six stages of Bloom’s
Taxonomy (Bloom et al., 1956) are in categories ranging from simple to complex: knowl-
edge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. After decades, the
Bloom’s Taxonomy model was revised by several of the original researchers to meet
demands from stakeholders (Anderson et al., 2001). The most significant change from
Bloom’s Taxonomy to the Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy was the exchange of the final two
levels. Instead of synthesis being followed by evaluation, the revised version of Bloom’s
Taxonomy placed evaluating before synthesis and renamed synthesis as “creating.”
The Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy included other modifications. The name of each level
was changed from a noun to a verb. The revised version also brought about a two-
dimensional approach to the taxonomy, whereas the original Bloom’s Taxonomy took a
one-dimensional approach. The Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy incorporates the noun and
verb, and each provides a separate dimension, “the noun providing the basis for the
Knowledge dimension and the verb forming the basis for the Cognitive Process dimen-
sion” (Krathwohl, 2002, p. 2). The Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy enables educators to rate
learning concepts based on a consistent scale to determine the degree of knowledge
required for each competency.
 JOURNAL OF TEACHING IN TRAVEL & TOURISM 47

3. Research methods and procedures

The qualitative research process and findings will be presented in this article as a case
study conducted at a university in the southwestern United States. In the steps
described in this section, the case study process will be identified in italics. The purpose
of this case study is to outline a process for assessing capstone courses in hospitality and
tourism curricula. The following aspects of the process are addressed:

(1) competency and curriculum development;

(2) identification of content domains;
(3) design of a capstone course using crosswalk analysis;
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 02:37 24 March 2016

(4) measurement of SLOs in the capstone course – development of a Test Blueprint to

assess the curriculum.

3.1. Competency and curriculum development

Competencies refer to attributes needed to complete a task or characteristics necessary
for success in the hospitality industry. Competencies may also be referred to as knowl-
edge, abilities, or attitudes that are observable or measurable. As industry needs change,
the curriculum must be changed as well. Industry input is vital to determining the list of
competencies for a hospitality management program. However, industry is not the only
constituency that can provide valuable information. Alumni, students, and faculty are
also excellent resources. A comprehensive review of literature to look at past compe-
tency studies can also be used to help faculty develop a list of competencies for the
curriculum (Dopson & Tas, 2004). This list of competencies should be mindful of the
variance in beliefs of hospitality management education, specific competencies required
for hospitality management curricula, and general education competencies (Dopson &
Nelson, 2003).
After information has been gathered from a variety of sources, a list of competencies
can be developed. Steps to accomplish this part of the process are:

● Step1: Develop program competencies for the entire curriculum based on information
gathered from the literature review, industry, students, alumni, and faculty. What do
students need to know when they graduate from the program (Dopson & Tas, 2004)?

At the case study institution, hospitality management faculty reviewed competency literature to
develop a list of competencies for an undergraduate hospitality management program. These
competencies were designed to address the Accreditation Commission for Programs in
Hospitality Administration (ACPHA) curriculum standards for the Hospitality Academic
Experience and the Field Experience (ACPHA Accreditation Commission for Programs in
Hospitality Administration, 2013). The competencies were intended to complete the phrase,
“To allow graduates to succeed both short-term and long-term in the hospitality industry,
hospitality curricula should prepare graduates with the ability to. . .”
The faculty submitted this list of competencies to professionals in the hospitality industry,
hospitality management students, and hospitality management faculty. All three groups
added, deleted, or changed the competencies based on their perspectives. A previous study
of alumni satisfaction with the hospitality management program also provided insights as
 48 J. CARPENTER ET AL.

to alumni perception of the existing curriculum. The result was a list of 211 competencies for
the undergraduate hospitality management curriculum.

● Step 2: Using the entire faculty, develop a competency grid (crosswalk analysis),
which evaluates and compares needed competencies for all courses in the existing
curriculum, using Bloom’s Taxonomy (Dopson & Tas, 2004).
Faculty members at the case study institution matched competencies on the list to the
content in courses they were teaching. In addition to identifying the competencies, they
determined the level of Bloom’s Taxonomy to which each competency was taught. They then
developed a competency grid that matched courses with competencies.
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 02:37 24 March 2016

● Step 3: Based on the comparison achieved in Step 2, faculty should add, delete,
and/or change curriculum content (Dopson & Tas, 2004).
The faculty reviewed the competency grid and discussed each competency and its coverage
in the curriculum. Competencies were identified that were determined to have deficient
coverage in the curriculum. Also, faculty discussed possible subjects that might cover
deficient content, and content that was unnecessarily redundant was revised or removed.

3.2. Identification of content domains

Typically, hundreds of competencies are required for any one job. Competencies can be
grouped into categories, making it easier for educators to discuss rather than specific
individual competencies. These categories are also known as content domains. Each
content domain represents a grouping of competencies relevant to one another,
enabling educators to teach managerial competencies more effectively (Tas,
LaBrecque, & Clayton, 1996). Content domains are used as a way to organize compe-
tencies in more general terms. Content domains are sometimes referred to as fields of
study and provide a sense of structure to curricula (Cizek, 1997).
Hospitality management curricula must include content domains that have been
identified as essential components for professionals in the hospitality industry. Within
these content domains, or categories, are specific competencies that identify specific
skills or tasks required for proficiency in a hospitality management position. Enabling
students and educators to classify key competencies into content domains creates a
common language and a broader spectrum of content that provides an effective and
efficient hospitality management curriculum (Okeiyi, Finley, & Postel, 1994).
In order to identify content domains and their foci, the following steps were taken as
the next part of the process:

● Step 4: Determine the categories, reliability, and validity of content domains

(Stevenson, 2010).

At the case study institution, all hospitality management faculty members analyzed 211
competencies and assigned appropriate levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy for the entire curricu-
lum. To categorize these competencies, the faculty had identified 12 content domains:
accounting, cost controls, marketing, human resources, information technology, basic and
service management, personal attributes and leadership, going green, global issues, strategic
management, legal issues and hospitality law, and tourism. Then, the researchers took the
 JOURNAL OF TEACHING IN TRAVEL & TOURISM 49

12 domains and reduced them to nine domains that were relevant to the capstone course.
For example, accounting and cost controls were combined into one category, which con-
tained all accounting concepts, called accounting, finance, and cost controls. Basic and
service management and strategic management were merged into one category and titled
strategic management. Personal attributes and leadership were narrowed to simply lea-
dership, and global issues and tourism were combined into globalization. Going green was
changed to sustainability. Legal issues and hospitality law weres reduced to legal issues,
and human resources, marketing, and information technology all stayed the same, thus
resulting in the final nine content domains.
In order to establish dependability of the domains, the researchers polled four hospitality
management full-time faculty members for their expert judgment. Many researchers have
developed their own measures for validity and reliability in their qualitative research, seeking
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 02:37 24 March 2016

out verification such as dependability and trustworthiness (Golafshani, 2003; Lincoln &
Guba, 1985; Stenbacka, 2001). Faculty members agreed that the nine content domains
were accurate and representative of the information being covered in the capstone course.
All four professors approved the list and requested the study continue.

● Step 5: Form focus groups of representatives from industry and/or faculty to

determine desired weights of content domains to be taught in the capstone course.
Relative weights of domains are necessary so that an assessment tool can be
developed to adequately measure each domain proportionally. For example, if it
is determined that the domain of management needs more weight than the
domain of information technology in the capstone course because more of the
content in the curriculum addresses this domain, then the topic of management
would need more questions on an assessment tool (Stevenson, 2010).
Two focus groups were formed. Each group consisted of several full-time faculty members
and several industry professionals who sit on the industry advisory board for the case study
program. Focus-group participants were selected using a convenience sample of those who
attended a hospitality management board meeting. Each focus group was asked to indicate
the relative importance (using percentages) of each of the nine content domains to be
taught in the hospitality management capstone course.
The focus groups were presented with informed consent forms and all attendees partici-
pated. The focus groups were given the task of assigning each of the nine content domains
with an associated weighted percentage. The groups were instructed to ensure that the total
percentages of the nine domains equaled 100%. The attendees were divided into two focus
groups so there were equal numbers of industry professionals and equal numbers of faculty
members in each group. Each focus group contained 19 participants and the groups were
asked to sit on opposite sides of the meeting room for the focus-group discussions. A specific
agenda was communicated and a precise time was allotted for the discussion of each
domain.
The method of decision making was consensus building based on the theories described
in The Consensus Building Handbook (Carpenter, 1999). The leaders of the focus groups
acted as neutral mediators of the discussion and allowed participants to generally agree on
each content domain’s weight. Once the domains had a weighting associated, the leaders
allowed participants to revise the weights after looking at the entire listing. Participants were
allowed to voice their opinions and a mutually acceptable weighting was determined. Upon
the completion of the 30-minute focus group discussions, each group had reached a
consensus.

● Step 6: If discrepancies exist between focus groups regarding weights of domains,

administer a survey to all participants to choose between focus-group results. If any
 50 J. CARPENTER ET AL.

ties exist upon completion of the survey, the department’s faculty, as a whole,
should break the tie. Ultimately, it is the faculty’s responsibility to determine the
curriculum (Stevenson, 2010).

Approximately one week after completion of the focus group, a survey was e-mailed to all full-
time faculty members, as well as the entire hospitality management advisory board, including
those who had not attended the board meeting. The survey was created using the Survey
Monkey software program and asked respondents to select one of the scenarios established by
the two focus groups. Respondents were asked to select the scenario based on the weighted
percentages they felt were most accurate. Respondents were also given the option to create
their own scenario, if they felt the two scenarios were not representative of their opinions. The
link to the survey was emailed to the sample with an informed consent document explaining
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 02:37 24 March 2016

that the responses would be kept confidential and that there were no foreseeable risks in
participating in the survey. The results provided 50 usable respondent surveys.

3.3. Design of a capstone course using crosswalk analysis

A crosswalk analysis refers to a competency grid used to compare, contrast, or assess a
specific listing of items with another as a cross-reference to determine commonalities. A
crosswalk analysis can be used to design a capstone course (Stevenson, 2010). The
following steps should be taken as the next part of the process:

● Step 7: Use the original crosswalk of the entire program competencies, and pull out
competencies specific to a capstone experience (Stevenson, 2010).

At the representative program, seventy-seven (77) competencies pertaining to the capstone

course were extracted from the 211 program competencies. The 77 competencies were
analyzed to further reduce to the smallest number of competencies possible without
diminishing content. This resulted in 40 competencies, which were then grouped into the
nine content domains for the capstone course.

● Step 8: Identify an existing course, if possible, to be a capstone for the curriculum,

with the intent of being a culminating experience for the degree. If no existing
course surfaces from current curriculum, create one using competencies and
domains identified (Stevenson, 2010).
● Step 9: If an existing course is identified, complete a crosswalk analysis of the
course objectives and the desired competencies. Identify any gaps and modify the
course accordingly (Stevenson, 2010).

The faculty completed a crosswalk analysis of the capstone competencies compared to the
learning objectives of the identified course using the Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy. This cross-
walk identified the levels of Bloom’s currently being taught in the class, which may or may
not match the faculty’s expectations of the Bloom’s levels that should be taught in the
course. Faculty identified the gaps between the competency levels expected by the hospital-
ity management faculty and the levels currently being taught in the class. Faculty made the
necessary changes to the course to obtain the desired competency levels based on the results
of the gap analysis. (See Table 1 for capstone crosswalk example.)
 Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 02:37 24 March 2016

Table 1. Capstone crosswalk example.

Desired competencies for capstone course Learning objectives of capstone course
To allow graduates to succeed both short-term Apply critical Apply strategic Address Analyze
and long-term as corporate executives/ thinking skills planning Develop Build global legal
entrepreneurs in the hospitality industry, this through process through leadership financial Develop dimensions and Faculty
course will offer students the opportunity to discussion in case analysis & style for business Develop marketing of ethical recommended
learn to: study & project discussion management plan HR plan plan management issues Bloom’s Level
Domain 1: Accounting, Finance, and Cost Controls:
1 Analyze financial statements (income statement, 5 4 6 4 6
balance sheet, and statement of cash flows)
2 Manage revenues in hospitality businesses 5 4 5 5
3 Control costs in hospitality businesses 6 4 6 6
4 Analyze factors that influence profit in the 6 4 6 4 5 6
hospitality industry
5 Analyze debt and equity financing of hospitality 6 6 6
companies
6 Analyze financial ratios for the hospitality 6 6 6
industry
7 Develop a capital budget using project valuation 4 4 4
criteria
Domain 2: Human Resources:
8 Examine the strategic human resources business
planning process, including:
9 a. Standards for labor productivity 4 4 4 4 4
10 b. Retention analysis of employees 5 5 5 4 5
11 c. Employee recruiting plan 4 4 4 4 4
12 d. Employee orientation/education plan 4 4 4 4 4
13 e. Performance management plan 5 5 5 5 5 5
14 f. Employee relations plan 5 5 5 5 5 4 5
Domain 3: Information Technology:
15 Examine the strategic roles of management 5 5 5 5 5
information systems in current hospitality/
tourism organizations
16 Utilize current information technologies in the 6 6 6
hospitality industry
JOURNAL OF TEACHING IN TRAVEL & TOURISM

17 Analyze IT-enabled marketing, promotion and 4 4 4 4 4

distribution practices in the hospitality industry
Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy: 1 = Remembering; 2 = Understanding; 3 = Applying; 4 = Analyzing; 5 = Evaluating; 6 = Creating.
51
 52 J. CARPENTER ET AL.

3.4. Measurement of SLOs in the capstone course – development of a test

blueprint to assess the curriculum
To assess SLOs in the capstone course, an instrument may be developed that fully tests
the students’ mastery of the subject areas. A test blueprint for this instrument may be
developed to guide educators in creating tests based on the blueprint content areas.
This blueprint will show the number and type of questions that each content area
should contain to assess the capstone content. In a test blueprint, an outline of topics to
be tested is created which provides a weighted value or importance level associated
with each area of knowledge. The weighted value determines the relative importance of
the topics to one another and enables an educator to distinguish which portions of an
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 02:37 24 March 2016

examination should be accentuated more or less than other portions. The test blueprint
represents a relationship between the topics or content domains and their importance
for a professional in the industry. The examination created from a test blueprint would
presumably determine whether an individual who took the exam would be prepared or
unprepared for a career in the industry (Spray & Huang, 2000).
The test blueprint also shows the breadth and depth of the questions that are asked.
The test blueprint depicts each competency and the associated levels of Revised Bloom’s
Taxonomy, which each competency should reflect. There are numerous designs and
templates for test blueprints, and the weighted values can be collected in multiple ways.
Interviews, focus groups, frequency scales, consequence scales, and the Rasch Rating
Scale Model are commonly used methods of determining weighted importance for
content domains (Spray & Huang, 2000).

● Step 10: Develop a test blueprint to design the assessment instrument using the
competencies identified in the course crosswalk analysis and domain weights
identified in the focus groups and the survey (Stevenson, 2010).

At the case study institution, the faculty wanted to be able to generalize the results of the
capstone assessment to the attainment of the theoretical constructs delivered throughout
the entire curriculum (SLOs). Faculty determined that the objective question multiple-choice
testing format should be used to assess achievement of these competencies in the capstone
course. A test blueprint was developed to design the assessment instrument using the
competencies and domain weights identified in the focus groups and the survey.

4. Results and discussion

4.1. Focus-group discussion and resulting domain weights
During the focus-group sessions, the researchers observed that many of the faculty
members stepped back to allow the industry professionals to contribute their ideas.
Faculty tended to gently guide conversation rather than become deeply engaged in it.
The nine domains were discussed in detail during the focus-group sessions.
Participants were generally concerned with the limited information they were given
about each content domain. Only the titles of the nine content areas were given; no
detailed description or list of competencies was provided to the focus-group partici-
pants. Focus-group results indicated that each group developed its own definition for
the content domains. Some group members made assumptions about where certain
 JOURNAL OF TEACHING IN TRAVEL & TOURISM 53

aspects of the industry fell within these nine domains. For example, the subject of sales
was included under marketing in one focus group, but it was not discussed in the other
focus group. How each group defined the terms may have been a contributing factor to
the differences between the two focus groups’ scenarios.
Focus-group participants agreed that all nine categories were important; however,
specific content domains were determined to have much less weight than others.
Sustainability and globalization were given the least amount of weight in both groups.
Focus-group participants felt these concepts were too new to hold a significant portion
of the weight. Participants agreed they were important, but not as important as other
content areas.
In addition, industry professionals struggled with identifying the type of position a
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 02:37 24 March 2016

graduate of the program would mostly likely obtain. Several focus-group participants also
expressed frustration in determining specifically which segment of the industry graduates
would enter. Many commented that weighting was dependent on the segment of the
hospitality industry students chose. Focus-group participants were also concerned with
the level of management for which graduates were to be prepared, whether it was entry-
level management or general manager/chief executive officer. Participants commented
that at a higher level of management graduates may have specialists in some of the
domain areas within their supervision, such as human resources. Therefore, they would
require a more general understanding of the topic rather than a detailed knowledge,
which would impact the weight given to that content domain.
Leadership was a controversial subject in the focus-group discussions. Some industry
professionals questioned how leadership could be taught in a college course. Some
participants felt management should be more heavily weighted than leadership and
others felt leadership should be the most important area and, consequently, should
have the most weight. A common thread found in most of the leadership discussion was
determining how important leadership skills were in the lower levels of management.
Since some participants viewed leadership as not as easily or as clearly defined as some
of the other content domains (accounting, for example), participants formed their own
definition of leadership and argued their point of view depending on their personal
opinion. The resulting domain weighting scenarios developed by the two focus groups
are illustrated in Table 2.

Table 2. Domain weighting scenarios developed by focus groups.

Group 1 recommended Group 2 recommended
Domains domain weights domain weights
Accounting, Finance & Cost Controls 25% 20%
Marketing 25% 20%
Human Resources 15% 10%
Leadership 10% 15%
Legal Issues 10% 2%
Strategic Management 5% 20%
Information Technology 5% 10%
Sustainability 2.5% 1%
Globalization 2.5% 2%
Total 100% 100%
Number of Respondents 19 19
 54 J. CARPENTER ET AL.

One of the reasons the industry participants may have struggled with this entire
exercise is that they may have been too far removed from entry-level management
positions to easily determine the weighting of significance for each domain. The
industry professionals participating in this study all held positions such as chief execu-
tive officer, general manager, director, vice-president, or partner.
Many of the industry participants had not worked in entry-level management posi-
tions for several years. This may have played a considerable role in how the content
domains were weighted and interpreted by industry participants. Perhaps industry
participants weighted the content domains according to their current positions, or
perhaps participants estimated how much weight these domains should have according
to entry-level positions within their individual organizations. Table 3 contains a complete
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 02:37 24 March 2016

list of the participants’ titles in the focus groups.

A follow-up survey was e-mailed to all full-time faculty members, as well as the entire
hospitality management advisory board to select the focus-group scenario based on the
weighted percentages they felt were most accurate. The survey resulted in a tie between
the two scenarios. After they looked at the results of the survey, the faculty had to make
a decision whether to select one option as it was, select one option and modify it, or
create a completely new option using the data provided.
A straw vote was cast to indicate each faculty member’s selection of Group 1’s
recommendation or Group 2’s recommendation. The consensus among the faculty
was to select Group 2’s recommendation and modify it. It was difficult to reach a
consensus among the faculty regarding modifications due to the topics being discussed;
each participant in this discussion taught at least one of the content domains that were
being associated with weightings of importance. Ultimately the department chair
encouraged participants to work towards a compromise. Group 2’s recommendation
was modified in the following ways: basic management was added to the strategic

Table 3. Participant titles.

Titles of participants Number of participants
Chairman/CEO/COO 3
President 3
Partner 1
Director of Art & Editorial/Publisher 1
Senior Vice President of a Global Marketing Company 1
Senior Vice President of Development 1
Senior Vice President of Sales & Marketing 1
Vice President of a Restaurant Company 1
Vice President Human Resources 1
Vice President of Operations 1
Vice President of Leadership Development 1
Vice President of Sales & Marketing 2
Regional Vice President 1
Area/Multi-Site General Manager 2
General Manager 2
Dean 1
Associate Dean 1
Chair 1
Professor 1
Associate Professor 3
Assistant Professor 4
Lecturer 5
Total 38
 JOURNAL OF TEACHING IN TRAVEL & TOURISM 55

Table 4. Final domain weighting recommended by faculty tie-break.

Faculty recommended
Domains domain weights
Accounting, Finance & Cost Controls 20%
Marketing 15%
Human Resources 10%
Leadership 10%
Legal Issues 10%
Strategic & Basic Management 15%
Information Technology 10%
Sustainability 5%
Globalization 5%
Total 100%
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 02:37 24 March 2016

management content domain based on focus-group discussions, marketing was

reduced from 20% to 15%, leadership was lowered from 15% to 10%, and legal issues
were increased from 2% to 10%. The compromise was based on the final vote, which
was unanimous. The instructor who taught the capstone course recused himself so as to
avoid conflict of interest. The faculty recommendation for each content domain with
associated weighted values is depicted in Table 4. From this recommendation, a test
blueprint was formulated for the capstone course.

4.2. Resulting test blueprint

A test blueprint was then developed using the final domain weightings determined by
the focus groups and revised by the faculty. Each content domain contained key
competencies that the researchers recommended for the capstone course for the
program.
The instructor of the capstone course, experts in curriculum assessment on the
faculty, and the researchers determined that competencies that fell under Bloom’s
Levels 1–3 would be taught and measured in pre-requisite and co-requisite courses.
An example of a competency rated at Levels 1–3 would be “understand and use
spreadsheets.” Competencies such as this example would be purposefully left out of
the final list of competencies from the capstone course as a result of students’ pre-
existing knowledge from other courses in the curriculum. For this reason, time would
not be spent teaching students in the capstone course how to understand and use
spreadsheets but, rather, they would be expected to develop and analyze spreadsheets
during the capstone course. The original 77 capstone competencies were condensed to
omit Bloom’s Levels 1–3, and the final list containing 40 competencies was categorized
into the nine different content domains.
Each domain’s weighted percentage was then multiplied by 100 total questions for
this test blueprint to arrive at the number of questions per domain. As an example, the
accounting, finance, and cost controls domain was weighted at 20%; therefore, 20 of the
100 questions on the exam would assess the accounting, finance, and cost controls
domain. Since there were seven competencies under the accounting, finance, and cost
controls domain, the 20 questions could not be divided evenly among the competen-
cies. Therefore, each competency was analyzed to determine which ones were more
complex and would require more questions to determine the students’ mastery of the
 56 J. CARPENTER ET AL.

content. The number of questions was then distributed among the competencies based
on this varying complexity. The other eight domains were handled in a similar manner.
The researchers utilized the competency verbs based on levels 4, 5, and 6 of the Revised
Bloom’s Taxonomy as a guide to determine the taxonomic level at which each competency
should be tested. Once an example test blueprint was developed, the instructor of the
capstone course reviewed each revised competency and the associated level by which it
would be assessed to identify any gaps or inconsistencies. Minor adjustments were made
and the instructor and chair of the department finalized the test blueprint.
The resulting test blueprint was designed to provide faculty with a consistent
measurement tool to assess each competency and content area based on a taxonomic
level. This test blueprint was designed for an exam containing 100 questions. The
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 02:37 24 March 2016

department faculty then reviewed the document and came to a consensus on its ability
to effectively assess the theoretical constructs in the undergraduate hospitality manage-
ment curriculum. Finally, the researchers recommended that faculty develop three
different but equivalent versions of the test, resulting in a test bank containing 300
questions. This would enable the faculty to change the exam or to develop several forms
of the exam for each semester. (See Table 5 for the resulting test blueprint.)

Table 5. Test blueprint using revised Bloom’s Taxonomy.

Analyzing Evaluating Creating Number
Weighted (Bloom’s (Bloom’s (Bloom’s of
Content domains and competencies percentage Level 4) Level 5) Level 6) questions
Domain 1: Accounting, Finance, and Cost Controls 20% 20
1. A. Analyze financial statements (income 3
statement, balance sheet, and statement of
cash flows)
1. B. Manage revenues in hospitality businesses 3
1. C. Control costs in hospitality businesses 3
1. D. Analyze factors that influence profit in the 2
hospitality industry
1. E. Analyze debt and equity financing of 3
hospitality companies
1. F. Analyze financial ratios for the hospitality 3
industry
1. G. Develop a capital budget using project 3
valuation criteria
Domain 2: Basic & Strategic Management 15% 15
2. A. Create solutions for problems in the 2
workplace
2. B. Examine the principles of quality 2
management
2. C. Examine the principles of management. 3
(Planning, organizing, influencing,
implementation, delegation, etc.)
2. D. Develop a business plan for a hospitality 3
organization
2. E. Examine strategic planning and management 3
applications in the workplace
2. F. Examine crisis management from the 2
operational and strategic perspectives
Domain 3: Marketing: 15% 15
3. A. Analyze strategies that create consumer 4
experiences as opportunities to expand
customer bases and increase profits
(Continued )
 JOURNAL OF TEACHING IN TRAVEL & TOURISM 57

Table 5. (Continued).
Analyzing Evaluating Creating Number
Weighted (Bloom’s (Bloom’s (Bloom’s of
Content domains and competencies percentage Level 4) Level 5) Level 6) questions
3. B. Develop a marketing plan for a hospitality 4
property
3. C. Examine the “branding concept” in the 4
hospitality industry
3. D. Utilize the principles of internal marketing 3
(employees) in the workplace
Domain 4: Human Resources: 10% 10
4. Examine the strategic human resources
business planning process, including:
a. Standards for labor productivity 2
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 02:37 24 March 2016

b. Retention analysis of employees 2

c. Employee recruiting plan 2
d. Employee orientation/education plan 1
e. Performance management plan 2
f. Employee relations plan 1
Domain 5: Information Technology: 10% 10
5. A. Examine the strategic roles of management 4
information systems in current hospitality/
tourism organizations
5. B. Utilize current information technologies in 2
the hospitality industry
5. C. Analyze IT-enabled marketing, promotion 4
and distribution practices in the hospitality
industry
Domain 6: Leadership: 10% 10
6. A. Examine effective leadership characteristics 3
6. B. Demonstrate the affective characteristics of 2
hospitality. Spirit of hospitality
6. C. Examine the principles of change 2
management
6. D. Maintain professional and ethical standards 3
in the work environment
Domain 7: Legal Issues: 10% 10
7. A. Analyze legal issues impacting the hospitality 4
industry
7. B. Understand EEO regulations (sexual 3
harassment, discrimination, ADA, etc.)
7. C. Understand personal safety issues and 3
regulations in the hospitality industry (worker’s
compensation, OSHA, FMLA, HazComm, etc.)
Domain 8: Globalization: 5% 5
8. A. Examine the issues of managing an 2
international hospitality/tourism business from
an operations perspective
8. B. Examine the issues of managing an 2
international hospitality/tourism business from
a policy perspective
8. C. Examine trends in global tourism 1
Domain 9: Sustainability: 5% 5
9. A. Examine sustainability in the workplace 1
including effects on civic responsibility and
stewardship
9. B. Determine implications of green technology 2
on profitability in the hospitality industry
9. C. Manage the economic, social, and 2
environmental impacts of tourism to sustain
resources
Total 28 34 38 100
Percent 100% 28% 34% 38% 100%
Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy: 1 = Remembering; 2 = Understanding; 3 = Applying; 4 = Analyzing; 5 = Evaluating; 6 =
Creating.
 58 J. CARPENTER ET AL.

5. Recommendations for further research

The following recommendations are suggested by the researchers based on the findings
of this study. Future studies desiring to determine the importance of specific content
domains and an associated level of the Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy as they pertain to the
hospitality industry should obtain a larger sample size so that broader generalization
may be made. It is recommended that future focus groups asked to determine the
optimal proportion of content domains be provided detailed definitions for each con-
tent domain, which specifically explain the individual competencies and the compo-
nents that are categorized under each content domain. Only the titles of the nine
content domains were provided for this study and no further descriptions or compo-
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 02:37 24 March 2016

nents of each domain were given.

Future studies seeking to obtain an accurate representation of the importance of
individual content domains should utilize a more representative sample of focus-group
participant job titles. Participants with varying levels of responsibilities (titles) within the
hospitality industry may provide significant insight in future studies. Specifically, recent
graduates or individuals working in entry-level positions should be included to provide a
different perspective of current needs, desires, and demands of the hospitality industry.
Recent graduates may provide additional insight for this discussion because they may
more easily relate to the transition between student and industry professional they
recently experienced.
In conclusion, this study provided a specific southwestern hospitality management
program with an effective and consistent measurement tool, which enabled the assess-
ment of the entire curriculum through a capstone course. This study also defined a
successful process that other educational institutions may follow to develop an assess-
ment tool for their academic programs.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

References
ACPHA Accreditation Commission for Programs in Hospitality Administration. (2013). Document
Library: ACPHA Self-Study Guide, p. 15–16. Retrieved July 26, 2013, from http://www.acpha-cahm.
org/document-library/
Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P. W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pintrich, P. R., &
Wittrock, M. C. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of bloom’s
taxonomy of educational objectives, abridged edition. White Plains, NY: Longman.
Apostolou, B. A. (1999). Outcomes assessment. Issues in Accounting Education, 14(1), 177–197.
Betts, S. (2008). Teaching and assessing basic concepts to advanced applications: Using Bloom’s
taxonomy to inform graduate course design. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 12(3),
99–103.
Bloom, B., Englehart, M., Furst, E., Hill, W., & Krathwohl, D. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives:
The classification of educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York, NY: Longmans.
Carpenter, S. (1999). Choosing appropriate consensus building techniques and strategies. In L.
Susskind, S. Mckearnan, & J. Thomas-Larmer (Eds.), The consensus building handbook: A compre-
hensive guide to reaching agreement (pp. 61–97). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
 JOURNAL OF TEACHING IN TRAVEL & TOURISM 59

Cizek, G. J. (1997). Learning, achievement, and assessment: Constructs at a crossroads. In G. D.

Phye (Ed.), Handbook of classroom assessment: Learning, adjustment, and achievement (pp. 2–20).
San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Daigle, R. J., Hayes, D. C., & Hughes, K. E. (2007). Assessing student learning outcomes in the
introductory accounting information systems course using the AICPA’s core competency frame-
work. Journal of Information Systems, 21(1), 149–169.
Dopson, L. R., & Nelson, A. A. (2003). Future of hotel education: Required program content areas
for graduates of U.S. hospitality programs beyond the year 2000-part two. Journal of Hospitality
& Tourism Education, 15(3), 11–17.
Dopson, L. R., & Tas, R. F. (2004). A practical approach to curriculum development: A case study.
Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Education, 16(1), 39–46.
Gerretson, H., & Golson, E. (2005). Synopsis of the use of course-embedded assessment in a
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 02:37 24 March 2016

medium sized public university’s general education program. The Journal of General
Education, 54(2), 139–149.
Golafshani, N. (2003). Understanding reliability and validity in qualitative research. Qualitative
Report, 8(4), 597–607.
Harwood, E. M., & Cohen, J. R. (1999). Classroom assessment: Educational and research opportu-
nities. Issues in Accounting Education, 14(4), 691–724.
Henscheid, J. (2000). Professing the disciplines: An analysis of senior seminars and capstone courses.
Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina.
Jervis, K. J., & Hartley, C. A. (2005). Learning to design and teach an accounting capstone. Issues in
Accounting Education, 20(4), 311–339.
Kay, C., & Russette, J. (2000). Hospitality-management competencies: Identifying managers’ essen-
tial skills. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 41(2), 52–63.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 212–218.
Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Journal of Sociology, 23, 481–483.
Moore, R. C., (2009). Capstone courses. Retrieved June 30, 2014, from http://users.etown.edu/m/
moorerc/capstone.html
Murray, M., Pérez, J., & Guimaraes, M. (2008). A model for using a capstone experience as one
method of assessment of an information systems degree program. Journal of Information
Systems Education, 19(2), 197–208.
O’Halloran, R. M., & O’Halloran, C. S. (1999). Comprehensive assessment in the hospitality and
tourism classroom. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Education, 11(2–3), 31–33.
Okeiyi, E., Finley, D., & Postel, R. (1994). Food and beverage management competencies: Educator,
industry, and student perspectives. Hospitality and Tourism Educator, 6(4), 37–40.
Peach, B. E., Mukherjee, A., & Hornyak, M. (2007). Assessing critical thinking: A college’s journey
and lessons learned. Journal of Education for Business, 82(6), 313–320.
Price, B. A., & Randall, C. H. (2008). Assessing learning outcomes in quantitative courses: Using
embedded questions for direct assessment. Journal of Education for Business, 83(5), 288–294.
Spray, J., & Huang, C. (2000). Obtaining test blueprint weights from job analysis surveys. Journal of
Educational Measurement, 37(3), 187–201.
Stenbacka, C. (2001). Qualitative research requires quality concepts of its own. Management
Decision, 39(7), 551–556.
Stevenson, J. M. (2010). Development of a test blueprint for a hospitality management capstone
course to measure programmatic student learning outcomes (Master of Science in Hospitality
Management Thesis). University of North Texas.
Stivers, B., & Phillips, J. (2009). Assessment of student learning: A fast-track experience. Journal of
Education for Business, 84(5), 258–262.
Tas, R., LaBrecque, S., & Clayton, H. (1996). Property-management competencies for management
trainees. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 37(4), 90–96.
University of Rhode Island. (2009). Student learning outcome. Retrieved June 30, 2014, from http://
www.uri.edu/assessment